A. A State...let's say Alabama decides it will no longer work with the federal government in enforcing titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act, because the State feels it is reasonable, proper and within the rights of the State and its citizens to limit access to certain services based upon one's national origin, if that national origin is a Middle Eastern country known to sponsor terrorism.

B. Another State...let's say California decides it will will no longer work with the federal government in enforcing federal immigration law. California sees enforcement of these laws as brutal, discriminatory, unamerican and unfair.

Which of the following is true?

1. Under the Constitution, neither California nor Alabama have the right to do what they are doing. (Please explain.)

2. Under the Constitution, both California and Alabama have the right to do what they are doing. (Please explain.)

2. Under the Constitution, one of those States is within its rights to do what it is doing, but the other is not. (Please explain.)

"For it is good to be children sometimes, and never better than at Christmas, when its mighty Founder was a child Himself."

A. A State...let's say Alabama decides it will no longer work with the federal government in enforcing titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act, because the State feels it is reasonable, proper and within the rights of the State and its citizens to limit access to certain services based upon one's national origin, if that national origin is a Middle Eastern country known to sponsor terrorism.

B. Another State...let's say California decides it will will no longer work with the federal government in enforcing federal immigration law. California sees enforcement of these laws as brutal, discriminatory, unamerican and unfair.

Which of the following is true?

1. Under the Constitution, neither California nor Alabama have the right to do what they are doing. (Please explain.)

2. Under the Constitution, both California and Alabama have the right to do what they are doing. (Please explain.)

2. Under the Constitution, one of those States is within its rights to do what it is doing, but the other is not. (Please explain.)

Alabama would be infringing upon the rights of the citizens under the constitution, however, in California, immigrants who are not citizens do not have rights. But state rights for illegal activities is a slippery slope. Take marijuana laws for instance. It is a federal law that marijuana is illegal. The feds can just as easily go after California for legalizing pot as it does for going after them because they are a sanctuary state. So as far as the California thing goes, I am not sure.

« Last Edit: Mar 10th, 2018 at 7:24pm by Wadsworth »

Definition of Stupid: Knowing the truth, seeing evidence of truth, but still believing the lie.

IP Logged

Ulysses

LNF Senior Staffer6
Online

Office of The Whore of Babble Don

Posts: 736
Location: Reality
Joined: Feb 19th, 2018
Gender:

Re: State V Fed: A Three Part QuestionReply #3 - Mar 10th, 2018 at 6:30pm

Alabama would be infringing upon the rights of the citizens under the constitution, however, in California, immigrants who are not citizens do not have rights. But state rights for illegal activities is a slippery slope. Take marijuana laws for instance. It is a federal law that marijuana is illegal. The feds can just as easily go after California for illegalizing pot as it does for going after them because they are a sanctuary state. So as far as the California thing goes, I am not sure.

So I guess the next question, why is the Trumperment overlooking pot legalization in various states, even though it's a prohibited substance nationally, yet going after a state (eventually states, I'm sure) for not cooperating with federal immigration demands?

Why isn't Trump suing California for not going after pot smokers, growers, dealers? For not turning over any of the above to the DEA?

Clearly this all is not just a matter of "State A is breaking federal law so we will withhold federal monies and sue State A", or is it?

So I guess the next question, why is the Trumperment overlooking pot legalization in various states, even though it's a prohibited substance nationally, yet going after a state (eventually states, I'm sure) for not cooperating with federal immigration demands?

Why isn't Trump suing California for not going after pot smokers, growers, dealers? For not turning over any of the above to the DEA?

Clearly this all is not just a matter of "State A is breaking federal law so we will withhold federal monies and sue State A", or is it?

I totally agree with you. That is why I am not sure where this is going.

Definition of Stupid: Knowing the truth, seeing evidence of truth, but still believing the lie.

IP Logged

Maestro

HardhatThe Writer's Croft
Offline

Posts: 6,599
Location: Midwest, USA
Joined: Sep 17th, 2005
Gender:

Re: State V Fed: A Three Part QuestionReply #5 - Mar 10th, 2018 at 9:25pm

I totally agree with you. That is why I am not sure where this is going.

I'm not going anywhere, really. It's interesting that on this issue, the two main parties have switched talking points when it comes to States' rights verses federal power and I was curious to see how people would reply.

There's no "gotcha" or anything.

"For it is good to be children sometimes, and never better than at Christmas, when its mighty Founder was a child Himself."

I'm not going anywhere, really. It's interesting that on this issue, the two main parties have switched talking points when it comes to States' rights verses federal power and I was curious to see how people would reply.

There's no "gotcha" or anything.

I was not talking about you, I was talking about the federal government demanding that California comply. Do you think it will happen?

Definition of Stupid: Knowing the truth, seeing evidence of truth, but still believing the lie.

IP Logged

Ulysses

LNF Senior Staffer6
Online

Office of The Whore of Babble Don

Posts: 736
Location: Reality
Joined: Feb 19th, 2018
Gender:

Re: State V Fed: A Three Part QuestionReply #7 - Mar 10th, 2018 at 10:28pm

I totally agree with you. That is why I am not sure where this is going.

I can sort of see.

Early in the Trump admin there were rumblings from Sessions that he wanted to crack down on "legal" pot, effectively using federal law to invalidate state and local laws that effectively legalize marijuana.

It will be sad when it happens. Sessrump may wait until (if) they are re-elected before trying anything so controversial and divisive. If they try it before 2020, it probably would doom their re-election chances.

But they are OK with using immigrants as scapegoats and punishing blue state politicians over sanctuary laws.